(1) Charles Taze Russell was not the founder of the Jehovah’s Witnesses. Russell did not believe in, and he preached against, the kind of authoritarian organization such Rutherford created after Russell died. Russell did begin printing his magazine, “Zion’s Watch Tower”, later “The Watch Tower”, in 1879. He was not the founder, however, of any religion.See:Russell Was Not the Founder of the Jehovah’s Witnesses

(2) Russell did not believe that Christ was to return in 1914; in 1876, Russell concluded that Christ had returned in 1874, and Russell died in 1916 still holding to the belief that Christ had returned in 1874. From 1904 onward, Russell was expecting the time of trouble to begin in 1914; he died in 1916 still holding to the belief that the time of trouble had begun in 1914. Russell was never expecting the JW kind of Armageddon in 1914, as he believed that Armageddon is a period of time in which the people of the nations are chastised, not eternally destroyed as Rutherford taught.

The above question is asked on Answerdigger.com, and several comments are made, and an answer given as the “best answer.” The answer chosen as the best answer, however, is far from correct, and contains many inaccurate statements. Since we have found no way to respond to this on the Answerdigger.com site, we decided to respond here.

The claim is that the Jehovah’s witnesses movement was started by Charles Taze Russell. This is false, since Russell did not believe in such a sectarian organization, nor in its authoritarian hierarchy. The true founder of the Jehovah’s Witnesses’ organization was Joseph Rutherford. I have discussed this several times before:

The claim is made that “Charles Taze Russell used the Bible and formulated ideas and had like minded people to follow along.” Russell did indeed use the Bible, and Russell came to certain conclusions from his study of the Bible; Russell, however, unlike the Jehovah’s Witnesses’ leadership, never insisted that all consecrated Christians had to accept his conclusions.

It is claimed that 1914 was a “big drawcard” for Russell. While some may have been attracted because of the Biblical time prophecies that Russell presented, I believe that most Bible Students, like myself, were attracted to what Russell presented from the Bible regarding the “ransom for all” as shown in the book, The Divine Plan of the Ages. Russell himself considered the understanding of the atoning sacrifice to be more important than understanding of time prophecies. The Jehovah’s Witnesses no longer preach this central doctrine, but have replaced it with an alleged “Good News” that would deny any benefit from the ransom for all for billions of people, including their children.

It is claimed that Russell “divined” 1914 from the Great Pyramid. The use of the word “divined” implies a form of demonic spiritistic divination. This, of course, is totally false.

The date, 1914 was known by N. H. Barbour before Russell accepted this. Barbour, however, did not “divine” the date 1914 from the Great Pyramid; the works we have of Barbour today are limited, but it does appear that he obtained the date through study of Bible prophecy, not from the Great Pyramid, and certainly not through any practice of demonic “divination”. I notice that Barbour mentions the date of the end of the times of Gentiles in September of 1875, but the first mention of 1914 as corroborated by the Great Pyramid that I have found did not appear until January of 1876. Thus, I conclude that some time before September of 1875, Barbour had already concluded from study of the Bible that the Gentile Times were to end in 1914, and then after that he found the measurement of the Great Pyramid confirms the date 1914.

Russell, later in 1876, accepted Barbour’s studies. In 1904, evidently after considering arguments made by some of his associates, Russell deviated from Barbour’s conclusion that the time of trouble was to end in 1914. I should note, however, that Russell presented his conclusions and expectations regarding those conclusions as his own, and refrained from the authoritarian approach taken by Rutherford after Russell died.

It is claimed that “later” the year 1914 was obtained by means of “a numerologic equation” from the Bible. This is misleading on two counts: the date 1914 was evidently first obtained from study of Bible prophecy, not from the Great Pyramid. I conclude that the author has the matter backwards. The phrase “a numerologic equation” seems to be implying the claim of some connection with spiritistic numerology. Barbour did use “numbers” given in the Bible which relate to time prophecy; he did not use any form of spiritistic numerology.

The statement is made that Russell’s (alleged) “numerologic equation” [evidently meaning his studies on time prophecy) has no credence at all. This sounds like what many say of the Bible itself, for many state that the Bible “has no credence at all.” Of course, what Barbour presented and what Russell presented was several scriptural lines of credence found to be harmonious with itself, as far as the dates and the chronology is concerned. One of the greatest reasons I accept the Bible by faith is the harmonious way all writers present the seed of woman — the seed of Abraham, leading up to Christ and seed of faith in the New Testament and the blessing of all the families of the earth; likewise, one of the reasons I accept the chronology and the dates as presented by Barbour is the self-corroboration of several scriptural lines of presentation as presented by Russell, which is indeed as credible as the Bible itself, if one understands the matter. This is not to say that I agree with all conclusions of either Barbour or Russell.

It is claimed that a lot of Russell’s “ideas have gone and been done away with.” This is misleading, since it is not totally true. Most of Russell’s ideas are still being preached and held to by thousands of Bible Students. His works are still being published.

It is true that the Jehovah’s Witnesses have, for the most part, done away with the central teachings of Russell, but it is not true amongst many of the Bible Students. Many Bible Students may not agree with all that Russell taught, and some have sought to refine on his ideas, but the central things that he taught still remain.

It is claimed the date 1914 “actually failed because they initially had ideas for Armageddon to take place at this point.” This is highly misleading. Russell’s intitial understanding concerning Armageddon, which he adopted and adapted from Barbour, was that Armageddon had begun 1874, and was to last until 1914, when it was believed that peace would fill the earth. Some Bible Students objected to this, and had concluded that the end of the Gentiles would not see the end of the time of trouble, but rather the beginning of time of trouble. Russell himself adopted this latter view in 1904. Russell died in 1916 believing that the time of trouble had begun in 1914. I believe it did, and that we are still in the time of trouble to this day, and I see no failure in the date itself.

Russell, however, never believed in the kind of Armageddon that the Jehovah’s Witnesses preach, that is, the idea that all unbelievers and their children were to be eternally destroyed. This is almost the opposite of what Russell taught.

What was the teaching that attracted most to Russell? I have no doubt that it was the teaching of the ransom for all, the coming age when all nations of the earth will be blessed, etc. I, for one, am thankful to God for the works of Russell.

Addendum to Comments given:

One person comments that Russell had a new doctrine that appealed to people, with the statement following: No fire/brimstone hell and pyramid power. While Russell presented the old teaching from the Bible on the Bible hell, he never presented any doctrine at all about “pyramid power.” A search of Russell’s works shows that he never mentioned “pyramid power” at all.

Russell did, however, believe that the Great Pyramid is God’s witness in Egypt. This has nothing, however, to do with “pyramid power.”

The Bible idea of hell to this day has not been accepted by many people. The carnal mind wishes to have a doctrine that would eternally keep their enemies in some kind of suffering for all eternity; such evil doctrine does not come from spirit of God, but from the spirit of error.

Another person, using the identity “Legal Alien” states that Russell “claimed to have a better translation of the Bible.” I am not sure what this is referring to. Russell did use works of Bible scholars to show how many words from the Hebrew and Greek have often been translated to suit man’s self-appointed so-called orthodoxy. If the thought is that Russell produced his own “translation” of the Bible, Russell never claimed such, and never did such.

In court, Russell plainly stated that he was not claiming to have been trained in either Greek or Hebrew. He was not permitted to explain that he uses the works produced by those who profess themselves to be Hebrew and Greek scholars to show how words are translated.
See:Ross’ Alleged Facts and Perjury Accusations

“Legal Alien” claims that the Jehovah’s Witnesses believe that Jesus was not the begotten Son of God. I have never seen or heard any of the Jehovah’s Witnesses ever profess such a thing. I am not with the JWs, but have read many of their books, and no that this statement is false.

Regarding Russell, I know Russell did indeed believe that Jesus is the begotten Son of God. Indeed, the fact that Jesus is begotten shows that he had a beginning, for no where in the Bible do the words for begotten mean without a beginning, but always it refers to that which is in some way brought forth into being. Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus. — Ephesians 1:3; 1 Peter 1:3.

Russell did indeed deny the God-dishonoring trinity doctrine. The trinity doctrine is nowhere to be found in the Bible, but has to be imagined, assumed, added to, and read into, each every scripture that is used to allegedly defend the added-on dogma. Indeed, if the trinity dogma is true, then there has been no redemption given to pay the wages of sin, since the trinity dogma would end up denying the basis of that Jesus’ ransom sacrifice for all.

A Christian will do well to compare the Bible itself with the dogma of man’s self-proclaimed orthodoxy and accept what the Bible says, even if it is not in harmony with what man’s self-proclaimed orthodoxy heresy teaches.

Another commenter, identifying himself as “robert C” claims that Russell founded the sect of Jehovah’s Witnesses in 1872. In 1872, there was no sect of Jehovah’s Witnesses at all. Russell founded no such sect in 1872, or any other year. The Jehovah’s Witnesses sect was actually founded by Joseph Rutherford in the twentieth century.

It is claimed that Russell declared himself to be a pastor. Many people put forth this idea as though it is fact, and no one ever presents any proof of this claim. Actually, the congregation that Russell was associated with in Pittsburgh first declared Russell as their pastor; Russell did not “declare himself” to be a pastor.

A post is presented on a site called “Hot Events” that asks the question directed toward “Jehovah’s Witnesses”: Is This True or False? I do not know if the question is thought of as rhetorical, but none of my responses to the post have been acknowledged, so I am left wondering if the owner posted this material, and asked the question without actually expecting anyone to seriously to challenge what is stated, thus, with the assumption that the statements are true.

After doing a search of the internet, I have found that this material has been copied and pasted to many sites, blogs and forums. It seems that many like rush to spread false accusations, misrepresentations, etc., without actually investigating whether what is stated is fact or not.

As a Bible Student, I am mostly concerned with what is being stated about Charles Taze Russell, and do not intend to respond all of the things being said about Rutherford and others.

Is this true, or is it false? Many may be inclined to say it is true, but one who knows the facts, if he is honest, should answer: It is false!

The first major reason for answering that the statement is false is that Charles Taze Russell did not believe such a sectarian authoritarian organization as the Jehovah”s Witnesses. He actively preached against such authoritarian sectarianism. The JW organization was slowly formed by Joseph Rutherford after Russell died; the Bible Student movement as a whole did not become part of that organization. Indeed, the Bible Students movement that had been associated with Russell, as a whole (represented by the majority), rejected Rutherford’s new organization, and continued their activities without Rutherford or his new organization. Therefore, it is misleading to say that Russell started what is now the Jehovah’s Witnesses.

The second major reason for answering that the statement is false is that Russell taught a “Good News” that is almost the opposite of that Rutherford introduced, and which still serves as a basis for Jehovah’s Witnesses’ “Good News” to this day. When Rutherford introduced his new “good news”, he several times misrepresented what Russell taught on the “ransom for all,” setting up one strawman argument after another, and then knocking down the strawman. Many of these “strawman” arguments still appear in the Watchtower publications to this day.

Nevertheless, since Russell really did preach “glad tiding of great joy for all the people,” as opposed to the bad tiding of eternal destruction for all people who reject the JW organization, again it would be misleading to say that Russell started such sectarianism.

#2: It is being claimed that Russell, at the age of seventeen, tried to convert an atheist to Christianity, but that Russell was himself converted to agnosticism.

Is this true or false? Yes, this part is true; that is to say, Russell at least tended toward agnosticism, or perhaps deism, for a short while, believing that the unjust, unreasonable, diabolic doctrines of man’s so-called orthodoxy were actually part of the Bible.

#3: It is being claimed that some time later, Russell attended an Adventist meeting where he was told that Jesus would be back at any time, and thus Russell “got interested in the Bible.”

Is this true or false? I cannot answer this completely, because Russell did not state exactly what it was that sparked his interest when he attended Jonas Wendall’s meeting in 1870. Russell never stated what Wendell spoke on that aroused his interest, but considering what Russell did write concerning his views between 1870 to 1876, it seems highly unlikely that Russell would have been aroused with Wendall’s views on the return of Christ is 1874. It would seem more likely that Russell may have been aroused by Wendall’s views concerning the condition of the dead, or something similar. In Russell’s writings, he stated that he did not accept Wendell’s prophetic “dates”, and that he had no interest in prophetic dates until 1876; so it seems very likely, if Wendell had spoken on his views concerning 1873 in 1870, Russell, then tending toward agnosticism, would not have been attracted by what Wendell presented. However, if Wendell spoke on one of Russell’s greatest concerns about the Bible, that is “hell”, or something related to the condition of the dead and the resurrection, then it seems more logical that Russell would have responded to that message favorably.

#4: The claim is made that William Miller predicted the world to end in 1843, and then 1844. Due to the perceived failure of these dates, it is alleged “many people became frustrated and withdrew from the Adventist movement.” It is claimed that a remnant, being led by Ellen G. White, formed the Seventh-Day Adventist movement. The leading light of Adventism had been William Miller, a flamboyant preacher who predicted that the world would end in 1843. When it didn’t, he “discovered” an arithmetical error in his eschatological calculations and said it would end in 1844. When his prediction again failed, many people became frustrated and withdrew from the Adventist movement, but a remnant, led by Ellen G. White, went on to form the Seventh-Day Adventist Church, and that it was “this diminished Adventism which influenced Russell.

Is this true or is it false? It is basically true, but yet it is still deceptive. The reader will probably be left with the thought that Russell was influenced by the Seventh-Day Adventist Church. The author does not reveal that there were many “Adventists”, often referred to collectively as “Second Adventists”, who were not associated with the Seventh-Day Adventist Church. Russell was influenced by many “Second Adventists” writers, but I have found no evidence of any influence by any of the Seventh-Day Adventists’ writers.

#5: It is claimed that Russell took the title “Pastor” even though he never got through high school.

Is this true or false? It is true in the sense that Russell never had formal high school education as administered in classrooms; however, it is misleading since by the time he was ordained as pastor in Pittsburgh, his education through private tutors and his own self-education and would have rivaled that of many that of many college graduates. Nevertheless, the statement would seem to be saying that one has to have man’s secular training in a “high school” in order to serve as a pastor. The Bible never makes such a stipulation.

It is also misleading to say that Russell “took the title of Pastor.” Russell was appointed as pastor by the church that he was associated with in Allegheny, PA. He did not merely take the title or office upon himself.

#6: It is being claimed that before Russell got his religious career well underway, Russell promoted what he called “miracle wheat.”

Is it true or false? Did Russell, before “his religious career was well under way” even know of anything called “Miracle Wheat”? Assuming that one counts his “religious career” as having been well under way in 1879, when he started publishing The Watch Tower. Had he known anything of Miracle Wheat before he started publishing the magazine? Absolutely not! And certainly by 1904, he surely had his religious career well under way! Had he ever said anything at all about “Miracle Wheat”? Absolutely not! Kent Stoner did not discover the “Miracle Wheat” until 1906. Russell did not find out about it until about two years later, around 1908, when it was being reported in the newspapers. Kent Stoner was a farmer in Virginia, and had no association with Brother Russell or the Bible Students. The name “Miracle Wheat” was first given to this wheat by either Kent Stoner, one of his associates who helped him in isolating and keeping the strain pure, or by the newspapers. The point is that there is no way that Russell even knew about this “Miracle Wheat” “Before he got his religious career well underway.” He certainly had his “religious career” well under way in 1908, thus the statement is false.

#7: It is claimed that Russell promoted what he called “miracle wheat.”

This continues from #6. This needs to addressed in two parts:

Did Russell ever “promote” miracle wheat? Indirectly he did, but the use of the word “promote” might be misleading. What actually happened is that two farmers, both Bible Students, had purchased some seeds from Stoner and had grown a lot of this “Miracle Wheat”, and wished to offer it for sale, and would donate all proceeds to the Watch Tower Society. Russell placed announcements of this offer in the pages of the Watch Tower, and allowed the seeds to stored, packaged and shipped from the basement of the headquarters of the Society.

The second part, to address is: what he called “miracle wheat,”

This is not exactly false, but again it is misleading. Someone named a rounded plastic tubing “hula-hoop” and every one called it “hula-hoop.” Likewise, since Stoner’s wheat discovery was named “Miracle Wheat”, Russell also called by that name. However, it is highly likely that the author chose the above wording so as to imply that Russell is the one that named the wheat “Miracle Wheat”, and probably that is the what most readers would assume from the way its is written. Russell, of course, did not give the wheat its name; he did call it by the name that was given to it in the newspapers, that is, “Miracle Wheat.”

#8: The statement is made that Russell sold this Miracle Wheat at sixty dollars per bushel.

This I have to give as false. Russell himself did not sell any of the wheat; it was others who offered the wheat for sale. Russell simply conveyed their offer in a few words of the Watch Tower. The price of sixty dollars per bushel was $25 LESS per bushel than Stoner had been selling the same wheat.

#9: It is being stated that Russell claimed Miracle Wheat “would grow five times as well as regular wheat.”

This is definitely false! Russell never made any claims at all for Stoner’s Miracle Wheat. He published newspaper reports of Stoner’s claims and claims by others concerning Miracle Wheat, but I have been unable locate any place where even Stoner or anyone ever stated exactly that it would grow five times as well as regular wheat. Newspaper reports were showing that it did grow many times more than other wheat, but the amounts varied from farmer to farmer.

#10 It is being claimed that Stoner’s Miracle Wheat grew slightly less well than regular wheat, that this was established in court when Russell was sued.

False on two counts. (1) The wheat was shown in court to produce several times that of regular wheat. (2) Russell was never sued regarding Miracle Wheat. It was Russell who sued the Daily Brooklyn Eagle for libel.

False. The cancer cure that Russell obtained was not fake; many seem to simply assume that it must have been “fake” since they have already condemned Russell of all kinds of other falsehoods, thus it seems that they are willing to believe that they have a right to assume anything else imaginable. The formula which Russell obtained from a doctor was legit, and similar formulas are used to this day to treat skin cancer. However, the use of the word “marketed” implies that he was selling this formula.

Here is how Russell himself describes the way he “marketed” this formula, as shown from his offer: “The recipe has come to us free and we are willing to communicate the formula, but to those only who are troubled with surface cancers and who will write to us directly, stating particulars. No fee will be charged, but in order to protect the sufferers, we require a promise that they will not sell the formula to others, nor receive pay for the use of it, nor communicate the formula to anybody. Any one known to be a sufferer can be informed of the terms on which the prescription is obtainable through us.”

#12: It is being claimed that Russell also marketed what he termed a “millennial bean.” The comment is made that the name “millennial bean” probably meant that it took a thousand years to sprout.

The way this is presented is false. Again, the word “marketed” is also applied to this “Millennial Bean.” The statement that Russell “termed” this “millennial bean” is also misleading, since he is not the one who gave it the name “millennial bean.”

#14: It is being claimed that Russell taught his followers the annihilation of unsaved people, which doctrine, it is being claimed, Russell picked up from the Adventists).

Is this true? No, Russell did not teach the annihilation of “unsaved people.” The author who makes this claim simply seems to be ignorant of what Russell did teach. Indeed, one of the main reasons for starting the Watch Tower magazine was to combat this false teaching that many Adventists were promoting. However, the writer, by using the word “Adventists” is probably referring to the Seventh-Day Adventists, not to the general groups often referred to as the “Second Adventists.”

While I do not necessarily agree with all of Russell’s conclusions, I would recommend reading Russell’s studies:

While many Adventists were teaching the annihilation of unsaved people, Russell rejected that teaching, and proclaimed the “ransom for all” saves everyone who is dying in Adam. — John 12:47,48; Romans 5:12-19; 1 Corinthians 15:21,22; 1 Timothy 2:5,6.

#15: It being claimed that Russell taught the non-existence of the Trinity.

Is this true? Yes! And I agree with him on this, since it was Jesus himself who said that the Father is the only true God. — John 17:3.

#16: It is being claimed that Russell taught the identification of Jesus with Michael the Archangel.

Did Russell identify Jesus with Michael the Archangel? Yes, as this conclusion is indicated from the Bible itself. However, before Russell reached this conclusion, many trinitarians had reached the same conclusion, that is, that Michael is Jesus.

#17: It is being claimed that Russell “the reduction of the Holy Spirit from a person to a force.”

Russell did not have to reduce the holy spirit from being a person, since the Bible no where presents the holy spirit as a person of the God to whom the holy spirit belongs. In the phrase “spirit of God” (ELOHIM, Genesis 1:2), does the word “God” (ELOHIM) represent one person, or three persons? Does the alleged person of the holy spirit belong to one person or three persons, one of which would be the person of the holy spirit which would then belong to the person of the holy spirit?

In Russell’s studies on the Holy Spirit, we have not found any place that he ever describes the Holy Spirit of God as simply being “force.” If by “force”, one means “power”, this is certainly an aspect of God’s Holy Spirit.

#18: It is being claimed that Russell taught the mortality (not immortality) of the soul.

This is true, at least as related to the dogma that says that man’s soul is inherently immortal; I believe Russell was correct in not adding to the scriptures this dogma an inherent immortal soul or spirit that continues to be conscious when the body dies. Such an idea is not once presented in the Bible, and one has to call upon the spirit of human imaginations in order “see” such a doctrine any where in the Bible.

#19 — It is being claimed that Russell taught the return of Jesus in 1914.

This is totally false. Russell never once taught the return of Christ in 1914. In 1876, Russell accepted that Russell had already returned in 1874, and he believed this until the day he died.

#20 — When 1914 had come and gone, with no Jesus in sight, Russell modified his teachings and claimed Jesus had, in fact, returned to Earth, but that his return was invisible.

The above is also false. Obviously, if Russell did not teach the return of Christ in 1914, he did not change his viewpoint concerning 1914 as the return of Christ, since Russell was never expecting Christ to return in 1914 at all. Russell was expecting the time of trouble to begin (Armageddon) in 1914, and we believe that time of trouble did begin in 1914, and we are still in that time of trouble to this day.

It is stated:

#21 It is being claimed that Russell taught that Christ’s visible return would come later (evidently after 1914), but still very soon.

As stated this is also false. Although I am not sure what is meant by the above statement, Russell did not believe that Jesus would ever return “in the flesh.” We have found no reference in Russell’s writings wherein he ever stated that he was a “visible return” of Christ at any time. Russell believed that Jesus offered his flesh once for all time as an offering for sin (Hebrews 10:10), thus Russell was not expecting for Jesus to come in that flesh at anytime. Nevertheless, the effects of the invisible kingdom of Jesus will be made manifest throughout the earth. Russell was, from 1904 to 1914, expecting the manifestation of Christ and the church to be some time after 1914, but if the thought is that Russell that Christ would return in his former flesh, Russell never believed such an idea. Russell began to realize around 1873 that Christ would not come again in his sacrificed flesh or body. Jesus does not take back his sacrifice.

Another point concerning this is also important to understand: Russell did not believe in “Armageddon” as it is taught by the Jehovah’s Witnesses. His view that was that “Armageddon” was to be over a period of time, in which many events were to take place. He believed that Armageddon was to discipline the nations, not to eternally destroy millions of men, women and children without their obtaining any benefit from the ransom for all.

#22 It is being claimed that in 1931, Rutherford changed the name of “sect” to Jehovah’s Witnesses.

While Rutherford did indeed change the name of his new organization to “Jehovah’s Witnesses” in 1931, it is deceptive if one thinks that the Bible Students movement became Jehovah’s Witnesses. As a whole (represented by the vast majority), the Bible Students movement rejected Rutherford’s new organization and his new gospel associated with “organization” doctrine. Thus, as a whole, the general name of the movement “Bible Students” was never changed to Jehovah’s Witnesses. The “Bible Students” continue exist to this day.

The following provide links to other sites that present essentially the same misleading material:

Please note: due to changing of website hosting, many links may not be working. I am hoping to eventually get these corrected. Most of the material linked to may be found listed somewhere at:
<a href=”http://rlctr.blogspot.com/2016/10/all-on-this-site.html”>http://rlctr.blogspot.com/2016/10/all-on-this-site.html</a>